₦airaland Forum

SERAP and lost cases are 5&6

SmartyPants:
Egwuatu held that when national security is threatened, the issues of fundamental human rights take a second stage

Such statements should make all shudder. Does this lawyer even understand what fundamental human rights are - as opposed to the broader concept of human rights?

We have a long way to go.

What are your fundamental human rights as against National Security?

You are the one who doesn't understand this

Richy4:
I am interested in the tax expect of the matter.. if twitter was supposed to pay taxes and they were not, why is that?...

No wonder there are zero infrastructure... Pictures of bad roads keep surfacing on social media about the state of roads in Nigeria.. if a giant like Twitter isn't paying...

What big tech companies do is to not register ib your country and collect money for adverts via agencies or through transfer then claim since they don't operate physically in your country, they don't owe you taxes. It is a case of "no face no case"

SmartyPants:
You're talking utter nonsense.

What do you know about the justiciability of fundamental human rights? What do you understand by fundamental human rights? Are you saying the right to life is not justiciable?

And where have you ever heard of socio economic rights being justiciable??

Mr. Man don't dabble into things of which you are completely ignorant.

You are the one without understanding. If your life is a threat to National Security, National Security takes precedence

100k is way too small

Mynd44:
What are your fundamental human rights as against National Security?

You are the one who doesn't understand this

Sure, from a lay person's perspective, National Security may sound like a logical reason for the violation of individual rights. Except, in reality, it is impossible, in modern society, for fundamental human rights and national security concerns to clash.

That is because human rights and national security are but two sides of the same coin, smoldered together by the concept of the rule of law. What is national security but the aggregation of fundamental human rights concerns? But who defines a national security threat? Who measures its gravity? This is where the rule of law enters into the arena as an arbiter.

In practical terms, where there is a national security concern, there must also be a legal route of expressing and managing that concern. It is not for the executive to arrogate to itself this power. That is why the legislative exists -- to make laws that would allow the executive to lawfully check whatever it is that threatens national security.

For example, to deprive a man of his liberty on the grounds of national security, there must be a law that enables the executive to do so. Any action taken outside of this, regardless of its legitimacy, itself becomes a threat to national security, by undermining democratic structures and allowing the executive to usurp the other branches of government.

Mynd44:
You are the one without understanding. If your life is a threat to National Security, National Security takes precedence

Sir, you are actually the one without understanding. Neither of the topic nor of the particular post you have quoted which is not connected with the subject of national security at all.

If your life is a threat to national security, there is a legally prescribed route by which the State can take your life.

It is not for me, being the president, to get up one day, declare you a threat and then take your life just like that.

Capiche?

SmartyPants:
Sure, from a lay person's perspective, National Security may sound like a logical reason for the violation of individual rights. Except, in reality, it is impossible, in modern society, for fundamental human rights and national security concerns to clash.

That is because human rights and national security are but two sides of the same coin, smoldered together by the concept of the rule of law. What is national security but the aggregation of fundamental human rights concerns? But who defines a national security threat? Who measures its gravity? This is where the rule of law enters into the arena as an arbiter.

In practical terms, where there is a national security concern, there must also be a legal route of expressing and managing that concern. It is not for the executive to arrogate to itself this power. That is why the legislative exists -- to make laws that would allow the executive to lawfully check whatever it is that threatens national security.

For example, to deprive a man of his liberty on the grounds of national security, there must be a law that enables the executive to do so. Any action taken outside of this, regardless of its legitimacy, itself becomes a threat to national security, by undermining democratic structures and allowing the executive to usurp the other branches of government.

And in this case, how does twitter ban or suspension violate your human right? Under the laws on Nigeria, twitter does not exist since it neither pays taxes or is registered under Nigerian law.

Plus the right of media houses to access a non existing platform does not exist

This is what happens when a judge is a tech illiterate. You cannot equate Twitter to other social media platforms.

I keep saying this. If lai had banned Facebook, all these old people (including senators) would have seen it as a violation of their fundamental human rights. They don’t understand it now cos they’re do not use Twitter.

Mynd44:
And in this case, how does twitter ban or suspension violate your human right? Under the laws on Nigeria, twitter does not exist since it neither pays taxes or is registered under Nigerian law.

Plus the right of media houses to access a non existing platform does not exist

I don't have any issues with the Twitter ban. My comments are general comments on the legal issues

SmartyPants:
Sir, you are actually the one without understanding. Neither of the topic nor of the particular post you have quoted which is not connected with the subject of national security at all.

If your life is a threat to national security, there is a legally prescribed route by which the State can take your life.

It is not for me, being the president, to get up one day, declare you a threat and then take your life just like that.

Capiche?

Actually, no.

Really? Tell those in Guam that

SmartyPants:
I don't have any issues with the Twitter ban. My comments are general comments on the legal issues

Actually, go back to read. Those are the declarations of the judge and not just the defendant

louqas:
Then go and pay
Tomorrow Serap file another nonsense crying more than the bereaved suit....it will get thrown out again and them go chop another fine
Na only twitter be social media app?......i hate nonsense

The judge just wanted to favour the FG. To mention 'crying more than the bereaved' speaks volume of his intentions.

Even with the chapters "39 & 45 of the 1999 constitution as amended" quoted by the lawyer and the judge, he is still confused

Mynd44:
What are your fundamental human rights as against National Security?

You are the one who doesn't understand this

Mynd44:
Actually, no.

Really? Tell those in Guam that

Ah, the old, someone else is doing it, therefore it must be right argument. Really?

Mynd44:
Actually, go back to read. Those are the declarations of the judge and not just the defendant

Okay, that's true. I misread that, as though it were the defense counsel speaking.

May we never need Nigerian courts to save us!! This ruling is embarrassing.

SmartyPants:
Ah, the old, someone else is doing it, therefore it must be right argument. Really?

ubimagos:
Even with the chapters "39 & 45 of the 1999 constitution as amended" quoted by the lawyer and the judge, he is still confused

These are the words of the Superman court

"“Where national security is threatened or there is the real likelihood of it being threatened human rights or the individual right of those responsible take second place, human rights or individual rights must be suspended until the national security can be protected or well taken care of. This is not anything new.

“The corporate existence of Nigeria as a united, harmonious, indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation is certainly greater than any citizen’s liberty or right. Once the security of this nation is in jeopardy and it survives in pieces rather than in peace, the individual’s liberty or right may not even exist.”"

Meaning even the rule of law itself is subject to National Security not the other way

Hence why Guam is done.

Hence why Boko Haram members can be held and locked up for years without trial

louqas:
Then go and pay
Tomorrow Serap file another nonsense crying more than the bereaved suit....it will get thrown out again and them go chop another fine
Na only twitter be social media app?......i hate nonsense

Typical of a BMC statement. Carry go…

Which kind country be this

Mynd44:
And in this case, how does twitter ban or suspension violate your human right? Under the laws on Nigeria, twitter does not exist since it neither pays taxes or is registered under Nigerian law.

Plus the right of media houses to access a non existing platform does not exist

Amazing defender of the universe…


Carry Go…

Biari till 2045!!!

InaNla:
Amazing defender of the universe…


Carry Go…

Biari till 2045!!!

If you are going to step to me, step with intelligent replies or keep walking